The Roanoke Times: The Wild Life

Comments

# 1

[January 9, 2007 7:49 AM]

Brian Price

Mark I am in favor of lifting the ban on Sunday Hunting. While I respect the opinions of those who say we should be in church and not in the woods hunting on Sunday, we should have the option to hunt on Sunday if we so desire.

# 2

[January 9, 2007 11:09 AM]

Dutch Holland

I think it's ridiculous that we don't have it already. If folks want to spend the day in church that's fine with me. I would rather hunt on Sunday and my children would have an extra day each week also.

# 3

[January 9, 2007 11:18 AM]

Mark Taylor

Thanks for your comments, Brian and Dutch.

I've heard it said that lifting the prohibition on Sunday hunting won't force someone to stop going to church. It would still be a choice, just as it is now.

Even if someone with strong religious convictions does make that choice from time to time, does it mean they are a less worthy Christian?

And, ultimately, who should pass judgement?

Those are the tough questions our politicians are going to have to consider in the coming months.

# 4

[January 9, 2007 11:59 AM]

Chuck Childress

Great report on Sunday Hunting. I'll be back looking for more!

# 5

[January 9, 2007 12:45 PM]

William Shirey

I am opposed to lifting the ban on Sunday hunting. This is the only day that you can walk or ride a bike or four-wheeler safely in the woods.

# 6

[January 9, 2007 2:35 PM]

Amanda

I am also opposed to lifting the ban on Sunday hunting. Who are the voters? Hunters? What about the hikers/backpackers, cyclists, or just anyone who likes to be outdoors in the woods on the weekends? Just as hunters are only allowed Saturday we are only allowed Sundays during hunting season. If the ban was lifted we'd miss some of the best times to be outdoors during those months.

# 7

[January 9, 2007 5:47 PM]

James Craver

All I can say is it is about time for Virginia to lift the ban on Sunday hunting. One wonders how the law was passed in the first place. It seems that most agree our country's founders were Christians, but I bet they hunted on Sunday's, especially if they wanted to feed their families. It seems that a lot of people want this to be a religious issue, when it is only a recreation issue. Let's face it, if people don't want to go to church, they will find something else to do. And by the way, you can feel free to hike or bicycle any day of the week, it is simply your choice. Hunter's, (who by the way along with fishermen foot most of the bill for you to have areas for outdoor recreation) do not have a choice.

# 8

[January 10, 2007 8:50 AM]

Darrin

If hunters are making it unsafe for fishermen, hikers, bikers, and all "other" outdoors men, then they do not need to be hunting in the first place...on any day of the week. A responsible hunter is alway going to make sure of their shot before it is taken. Hunters making the woods “unsafe” in my opinion is not a valid argument for not lifting the Sunday hunting ban. If that were the case, we would have to ban hunting everyday!

# 9

[January 10, 2007 9:01 AM]

D. Boudreaux

I live on a 700 acre family farm and the Sunday hunting ban is not about going to church, it's about giving Landowners a break. It's easy for the hunter to say "Well, the landowner can just ask me not to hunt on a particular day and I won't," but in the end, landowners will continue to be exploited. Sunday is a day, not necessarily for church, but to walk the fields or woods, ride the four-wheeler, or spend time with your family or friends outside, -Without- the noise of guns.

I am in complete support of hunting, but landowners and their land need a break, too.

# 10

[January 10, 2007 12:20 PM]

Dunham

I spoke with a fellow sportsman from Michigan last November and he was astonished to learn that Virginia did not allow hunting on Sunday. his questions to me were "when does the working man get to hunt? only one day a week (saturday)? don't they realize that the hunter who buys the license should benefit from it? did they consider that when they raised the fee for the license? Do you get to fish on Sunday? What's the difference?" The General Assembly should look around at what the other states have done. Those 40+ states that allow Sunday hunting couldn't be THAT wrong. I would like to see Virginia move into the modern age. i agree that landowners need a break, but they have the final decision on who hunts and when they can hunt, so i don't think that is a valid point. Religion? Can't buy that one either. "Killing is killing" no matter what day of the week it is.

# 11

[January 10, 2007 2:19 PM]

M Jackson

I trail ride and have permission to ride on several properties. For my safety, the landowners have asked me to ride on Sunday only during hunting season.

The owner of one of these properties doesn't allow hunting on his land, so I should be able to ride there without concern, but I can't -- because impolite hunters on adjacent properties set up tree stands on the property line with the intention of shooting on either side, should the opportune deer arrive.

I should be able to trust that hunters will be able to tell the difference between a horse and a deer, but would you leave room for doubt? When there are hunters who don't respect a landowner's wishes for his property not to be hunted, I find it hard to trust these same folks that I will be safe -- even on Sunday.

Not all hunters are so disrespectful, and I support the rights of hunters and those who want to keep and bear arms. I like to shoot, but I also like to ride. I think the Sunday ban is reasonable and provides a needed break for other outdoor enthusiasts to get outside -- and the animals too.

# 12

[January 11, 2007 8:22 AM]

b patrick

I have read all the posts above and am astonished at the selfishness of those opposesd to the Sunday hunting issue. Hunters pay for all the land that you folks use at your desire. I don't see an license fees for riders, birders, hikers, etc... I'd like you to think about this for a minute. Sunday hunting, that is. Is there an issue here? The first question is whether this should be a debate at all. No doubt, the current illegality of Sunday hunting is the result of the "Blue Laws" of Pilgrim times. Hunting was then illegal because it was another individual pursuit not to be followed on the Puritan day of worship. It was also illegal to till one's fields, open one's store for business or drink alcoholic beverages. The only acceptable behaviors for Sunday were forms of communion with a Christian God. All other behaviors were deemed illegal.

Time passes and states change. Of course, now we allow individual liberties to a significantly greater degree than the Pilgrims did back then. Now we engage in business, enjoy our recreation and may even relax our religious devotion without violation of the law. That is, all of us may pursue any activity legal on any other day of the week except hunting.

On closer inspection, it isn't even very clear why the law barring hunting on Sunday remains on the books except that we removed all the other Blue Laws piecemeal (usually as a result of business pressure) and have now logically gotten around to this one. I say logically because there can be no basis in civil liberty for its continuance. And furthermore, there is no question that hunting, as a recreational pastime, is as reasonable as the Sunday drive or boating or hiking or cutting wood or any of the other individual pursuits of men and women everywhere.

Unless...the old Blue Law is now being used as a means of personal discrimination by the few as it was once used as a vehicle for religious restriction by the many. And there appears to be ample evidence for this conjecture.

I'll say here that this should not be a question for the proponents or the adversaries of hunting per se. The law should not be used to force the views of one ideological group upon another. Not in these United States, at least. Here, the law is formulated for the good of the society. Laws are meant to enforce and model by both content and process reasonable behavior for the population as a whole. In this country, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (when these don't unduly threaten the safety of the community) are the reasonable behaviors we base our society upon.

Putting aside the question of discriminatory application of the law for a bit, is hunting a reasonable liberty and pursuit of the population? Does hunting unduly threaten the safety of the individual or endanger the fabric of our community? Let's briefly examine these points.

What is a reasonable liberty? By our own standards of behavior, driving a vehicle is reasonable. It is also likely to be the most dangerous behavior we engage in for both others and ourselves around us. But we consider this reasonable nonetheless and not unduly threatening. So too, power boating. Despite the very high risk of accidental drowning and injury, and the obvious risks of sharing finite water space with swimmers (who enjoy similar risks) and sailors, boating is accepted as reasonable. Hiking is also reasonable. Hikers erode trails, damage wild plants and harass wildlife. Unintentionally or not the nature of hiking is intrusion into non-human dominated spaces. Hiking also results in unwanted contact between strangers in remote places and (accidental?) trespass but hiking too is deemed a reasonable individual recreation. The list goes on. The cutting of wood is permitted. It too may encompass real risks for the person and the environment along with the air and noise pollution it creates, nonetheless it too is reasonable.

All of the outdoor activities noted above are reasonable and all are legal to pursue on Sunday but not hunting. Is hunting riskier to the participant or the non-participant than these? No. The insurance actuarial tables are clear on the greater risks of injury and death from driving, swimming, boating, hiking, chain sawing, bicycling, etc. All of these are greater risks to the individual and the community than hunting. Therefore, we allow reasonable people to make reasonable efforts to pursue these interests at their liberty on Sunday.

Just to underscore the point made above, we also allow citizens of the Commonwealth to also consume alcohol and then consider it reasonable for them to use good judgment while under the influence of a known mind altering drug in their further choices of behavior. This is certainly a notable recognition of the value personal liberty has for us.

By way of comparison of their behavior and/or threat to the community, hunters are certainly less numerous than hikers and by necessity they utilize out of the way locales. Hunting is so much more difficult than hiking or biking that it is often ruined just by the presence of others regardless of their willingness to share the natural resources or not. Hunters are certainly quieter than sawyers and pollute less than any engine driven vehicle. They are responsible for the operation of significantly less dangerous machinery than a car or a boat (according to the insurance companies) and often have no cause to operate their bow or firearm at all in the course of a day afield. Think about it, how many people just sit in their car or boat without ever starting it up and going somewhere?

In addition, hunters must have demonstrated, by test or experience, both knowledge of the law and their responsibilities under it to be licensed for their activity. Only automobile operators have a similar responsibility. Sawyers, bikers, riders, boaters, sailors and such have no such requirement to demonstrate their awareness of the dangers or impact of their pastimes in shared public places.

It is also important to recognize and honor that hunters pay the state a license fee directly to support the environment of their pursuit. These are the same environmental resource that others do not pay a cent to enjoy as well. Do hikers pay? Boaters? Campers? Swimmers? I could go on.

Now that we have a broader view of what is reasonable and realistic behavior in public places, let's expand upon an earlier point. Times change. In these times, it is not uncommon for a working person trying to care for their family to work two jobs or six days a week or a weekend job. This is certainly a laudable though often necessary sacrifice and I think you would agree that such individuals should be respected for their efforts and for their responsibility to their family and community. Then isn't it unreasonable to deny this person the opportunity to pursue their interests on the one day they are likely to have any time off for themselves? Do we really expect everyone to be so well off that they can and should take a weekday or a Saturday off from work if they want to go hunting? Is it our intent nowadays to support a law against Sunday hunting that means that responsible hard working individuals should just accept loosing out because they have put their family first? It sure looks like the "haves" are unwilling to share what is in the public trust with the "have-nots". It is time to join the 21st Century. The "Blue Laws" of the 19th Century no longer apply to today's society. Today's society is a 7-day workweek with little time spent pursuing ones chosen recreational activities. The continued balking at the issue of Sunday hunting is tantamount to "Recreational Discrimination”. There are many arguments that arise in the presence of this issue. All of which hold no weight when really scrutinized. It seems that the biggest debate is the religious belief that Sunday is a day of worship. Isn't there a thing nowadays supported by the constitution called the separation of Church and State. It seems that the continued use of this argument is unconstitutional. If it works in 43 other states it can't be as bad as others would have you believe.

# 13

[January 11, 2007 9:45 AM]

Butch Ammon

I am all for opening up Sunday hunting. It just makes perfect sense. I created that internet petition regarding Sunday hunting and it has now just hit over 2000 signatures!

I know plenty of non-residents who have stated that they actually REFUSE to hunt in Virginia because of no Sunday hunting.

The time has come to allow hunters an entire weekend afield, versus just one day!